The case that received considerable domestic attention concerned a hotel in the state of Brandenburg which, in 2009, refused to provide a room to the former head of the extreme right-wing National Democratic Party (NPD), Udo Voigt. Voigt sued the hotel for discrimination, for banning him on the grounds of his political opinions. The hotel argued that the right-wing extremist´s presence was detrimental to the hotel´s image and reputation. The lower instance courts found in favor of the hotel.

The Federal Court of Justice ruled that while the hotel could not retroactively cancel the booking, because it failed to demonstrate how Vogt had previously upset other guests with his presence, the hotel was fundamentally “free to decide whom it accepts and whom it does not.” The highest Court admitted that the case raised extremely difficultlegal issues, including whether hotels (and by extension restaurants, discos, shops, etc.) are public spaces open to everyone. The case also pitted personal freedom/autonomy against equality. Article 3 of the German Basic Law bans discrimination, inter alia, on the basis of religious or political views. However, the Court stated this principle may not apply between private people and companies.

This is where the Court, in my opinion, was monumentally wrong. First of all, the principle of discrimination does apply in both public and private sphere. Although the concept may be still new and even somewhat alien in Germany, the EU Race Directive, which Germany had to transpose, extends prohibition of discrimination to both public and private sector. Article 3.1(h) of the Race Directive specifically stipulates non-discriminatory “access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public, including housing.” Second, the German Basic Law (Article 18) contains a clause whereby persons abusing their constitutional rights could forfeit those rights. The German Court chose instead to conclude that private establishments are free to choose whether and to whom render their services.

So, before we yield to the temptation to celebrate that neo-Nazi thugs would from now on sleep in the streets instead of hotels, let´s consider implications of the ruling. In reality, what is more likely to happen and in fact happens practically on a daily basis: that private service establishments would turn away white right-wing extremists, or unpopular immigrants/minorities? This was a rather unique case involving the known neo-Nazi, that is, someone a priori rejecting the very principle he tried to invoke. But with this ruling, the Court has handed German private establishments a legal license to discriminate.

This article is part of the series of blogs investigating connection between the neo-Nazi movement and hate crimes in Spain.

As discussed in the earlier articles of this series (see here and here), many high-ranking Nazis fleeing criminal prosecution after the WWII found a safe refuge and a new home on the Spanish shores. Malaga was one of the most important destinations for Nazi fugitives.

In Marbella (the province of Malaga), Nazis enjoyed personal support and protection of Honorary Consul Hans Hoffmann, a former Gestapo official and a suspected Nazi spy. “Juanito Hoffmann,” the nickname under which he was known around, owned vast amounts of land which he used during one of the past Spanish property booms to amass a great fortune. Remarkably, decades later, the Hoffmann´s son – a lawyer and legal administrator of various companies – would be one of the major figures implicated in the Marbella corruption case.

The Hoffmann´s empire provided a safety net to hundreds of fugitive Nazis, including notorious Leon Degrelle and Otto Ernst Remmer who lived undisturbed in Spain until their natural deaths. Another high-profile Nazi and Holocaust denier finding a safe haven in Malaga was Gerd Honsik. He was arrested only in 2007 after the previous request for his extradition to Austria, in 1995, was rejected on grounds of possible “double jeopardy” (sic).

That cozy existence under the Spanish sun was interrupted by the international hunt for Dr. Death (Aribert Heim), which uncovered scores of the former Nazis hiding in Spain. By then the damage had been done: the decades of unfettered influence from the “old guard” turned Malaga, along with select other areas, into a fertile breeding ground for neo-Nazis and extreme right groups of all sorts.

According to a Spanish Daily Malaga Today (Malagahoy.es), citing the police officials, growing numbers of young people have been joining neo-Nazi ranks in that Andalusian province in recent years. The largest concentrations are estimated in the poorer working class neighborhoods of Carretera de Cadiz and Nueva Malaga. In addition, Fuengirola in the province of Malaga is considered the skinhead “hard nucleus” and one of the preferred hangouts for neo-Nazi leaders from all over the country.

They (the youth – Pro Igual) are genuinely brainwashed; it starts with the adoption of philosophy of total nullity of one´s own personality … and continues with the distribution of pamphlets and literature about past Nazi leaders, and even conferences with the former officials of the Third Reich who had settled in the Costa del Sol (Malaga).

the presence of the extreme right is not limited to organized groups demonstrating around the city, but even at the University there is a notable increase of proponents of (the Nazi) ideology who insult and bully students belonging to the left-leaning associations.

In 2011, the Malaga section of the Communist Party (PCA) complained of the ongoing harassment and even physical attacks on its members by neo-Nazi groups. The PCA in addition claimed that the police did not always adequately respond to the neo-Nazi demonstrations and assaults on opponents. Here is a video, courtesy of Alerta 112, which shows a striking contrast between a timid and pacifist attitude of the police vis-a-vis an aggressive and unapologetic behavior of the skinheads.

Particular notoriety was gained by a row between the neo-Nazis and leftist youths that took place during the Feria de Malaga (an annual Spring festival) in 2011. Following the demonstration of the National Alliance (an extreme right organization), about 40 skinheads carrying neo-Nazi attributes surrounded the PCA office in an attempt to provoke a fight. Fortunately, violence was averted by the prompt arrival of the police. However, captured on video, the row shows how easily combustible the situation is, with tensions running high among the extremist youths. Against the background of an ongoing economic crisis gripping Spain and leaving nearly half of the young people aged 18-25 jobless and hopeless, such incidents are disturbingly reminiscent of the Germany of the late 1920s.

Continuing with the series, in the following weeks we will publish articles probing the neo-Nazi scene in other Spanish regions: Valencia and Madrid.

In February 2012, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had apologized to the families of the victims of apparent hate crimes for the failure of the German state to find and prosecute perpetrators. The so-called “döner murders” of mostly ethnic Turkish entrepreneurs had taken place between 2000 and 2007, but had remained unresolved until a recent and accidental discovery of the neo-Nazi link.

“Most of you were abandoned in your time of need. Some relatives were themselves for years suspected of wrongdoing. That is particularly oppressive. For this, I ask for your forgiveness,” stated Ms. Merkel.

Establishing the neo-Nazi connection to the murders had prompted soul-searching among the German authorities trying to understand how and why so many hate crimes against immigrants could have been overlooked for so long. The answer to this mystery may be closer than many think, as Ms. Merkel´s apology stands in a stark contrast with her earlier speech on the failure of multiculturalism in Germany. Then, in no uncertain terms, the German Chancellor suggested that the immigrants bore at least partial responsibility for failing to integrate… or to leave:

“We kidded ourselves a while, we said: ‘They won’t stay, sometime they will be gone,’ but this isn’t reality.”

That is the crux of the problem, isn´t it? Immigrants would not leave. Immigrants would not put their lives on hold while giving their best years and energy working in host countries. Immigrants would go on to have families and children. Immigrants would not abandon their identity, culture, religion, food, or dress code. And so they are charged with being responsible for inspiring distrust, hate, or envy, or all of the above. The long tradition of xenophobia and blaming (perceived) outsiders for political, economic, or social failures of the country is carefully omitted.

Of course, immigrants are still needed, just as they were needed after the WWII rebuilding their host country from the ruin in which extreme xenophobia and racism had left the entire continent. Today as ever Germany depends on the immigrant labor to power its economy. This is why Ms. Merkel´s belated apology, albeit welcome, seems somewhat disingenuous and self-serving. But genuine or calculated, this is a high time for reflection, in Germany and elsewhere, as to who their real enemies are.

There is poignant symbolism in the “döner murders” affair. The law-abiding, entrepreneurial immigrants were slain by German criminals that hardly made any contribution to German society. However, even the reputably efficient German police could not escape the usual stereotyping and by default looked for perpetrators among the immigrant community. That, despite the growing evidence that the threat of violence emanates not only or not as much as from immigrants or minorities, as from poorly educated, disenfranchised, racist and increasingly extremist majority youths falling prey to clandestine yet highly organized right-wing organizations. Suffice it to mention the Breivik´s killing spree in Norway and his ideological influences to underscore the reality of the threat.

While even mainstream politicians across Europe try to score cheap victories by engaging in demagogic populism and indulging public intolerance with myths about immigrants “stealing jobs,” “scamming welfare,” or “engaging in terrorism,” the much deadlier threat comes to fruition: the neo-Nazi terrorism.

In the first place, sincere condolences to the victims and families who endured or lost their loved ones in the massacre in Norway. Then comes reflection on this heinous crime of hate.

There has been considerable coverage of the terror attack itself and of the perpetrator, some coverage bigoted (especially before any facts came to life), some thoughtful and balanced. In a nutshell: an extreme right-wing Christian terrorist took out his hatred of immigrants and especially Muslims on scores of innocent people. The response of the Norwegian government has been noble: so far, it has pledged to respond to terror with more democracy, not with hunting ´em down. But how long and how effectively can democracy withstand attacks on democracy itself?

Breivik, Wilders, LePen, Griffin, and Co. enjoy talking about “Western” values which are presumably “threatened” by immigration (read: Muslims). But their demagogy is ridiculously plain to see when they call to stop that mythical “threat” with as undemocratic means as could be. Banning mosques and minarets means not only restricting freedom of religion but doing so in a discriminatory fashion; outlawing headscarves and dictating personal dress codes amounts to violating not just religious expression but privacy and personal integrity; deporting foreigners is often breaching not only freedom of movement but elementary, non-derrogable due process. And now merciless mass killing.

Hate kills, we have just witnessed that, yet again. Moreover, there are concerns that the massacre in Norway can be a template for others. And while the intention of responding to terror with more democracy is respectable, it is useful to remember that even democracy has its limits, if it is to survive. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany — a country that knows these things first hand — stipulates: “Whoever abuses the (basic rights) in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit these basic rights.” Norway, and the rest of Europe where right-wing terrorism has taken hold, must resist to protect their democratic values. That means restricting rights of breiviks and especially people in the position of power who influence breiviks with their hate speech (Dutch courts that last month let Wilders off the hook should take note). Hate does not just speak, it kills.

Rephrasing a late European philosopher, a ghost wonders about Europe, a ghost of racism. How else can those facts be interpreted:

Nicolas Sarkozi deports Roma indiscriminately, and his approval rating with the French public shoots up from 30 something to over 60%.

Thilo Sarazin publishes an anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim book, and it is a bestseller in Germany before even hitting the bookshelves. (He must be chuckling to himself for all the free advertisement he got, thanks to frantic media coverage.)

Geert Wilders recycles a few unimaginative islamophobic slogans of the late Dutch xenophobes, and he comes third in the national election. And his promise to join in Muslim bashing on “ground zero” only seems to push his popularity higher.

“Mother Reich” Barbara Rosenkranz, spouse of an effective neo-nazi, came second in Austrian elections on strikingly ultra-right rhetoric.

Berlusconi… well, the point is clear.

Something is profoundly wrong with the political climate across Europe. And there is no point in sacking, condemning or silencing the people who just say what the majority of others think and evidently support. They are merely messengers of the public opinion which does not want foreigners, Roma, Muslims, Africans, others (insert as appropriate) in their countries.

In 2000, Jorg Haider´s xenophobic slogans led the rest of Europe to spring up in defence of human rights, Austria even faced EU sanctions. Ten years later, much stronger-worded xenophobia, sometimes coupled with action, of the above politicians does not seem to prompt similar reaction and action. Is it fatigue? Or is it acceptance that xenophobia, far from being a marginal force, is the political mainstream, best expressing what European public support?

Perhaps, concentrating anger on groups regarded as alien provides, albeit illusionary, escape from much more complex and invincible every day issues, such as economic crises, ever increasing climate problems, and so on, and so forth. It is certainly more placable than suggesting that racism, intolerance and persecution of difference may be part of common European psyche, “European common values.”

For the sake of Europe, I would very much like to believe that one day this propensity to look for scapegoats will be overcome, and more rational and pragmatic thinking will prevail among the majority. Let´s hope this happens before the “beware of the enemy” attitude would result in yet another great human catastrophe.

Oh stop with the lies. and smear. It is only right and fair that all European Countries are being reluctant to allow people in who don’t want to live by European Values – and it is also fair European’s want to ensure there countries are populated, in the distant future, with people of their descent. You must be a women, or a person desperately trying to become a journalist by writing about politically correct speaking points, in the hope of some day getting on with a major news paper. Maybe you should try to do some actual reporting on the streets before you start with your ‘opinion piece’, because, quite frankly, you seem to have no clue what you are talking about.

I believe that most Europeans are not opposed to the presence of foreigners living and working in their countries. What they ARE against is a large demographic change that will , over time, destroy the uniqueness of their Caucasian nations, and turn them into multi-racial, multi-cultural Towers of Babel!

There appears to be an unhealthy preoccupation with immigrant fertility rates among European elites. A German banker with an interesting name Thilo Sarrazin appears concerned — and has made his concerns public — that Muslim immigrants in Germany procreate too much and that in 90 years

the land of his grandchildren and great grandchildren to be predominantly Muslim, where Turkish and Arabic are spoken in broad sections of the country, where women wear a headscarf and where the daily rhythm of life is determined by the call of the muezzins.

Christian Science Monitor quotes German federal authorities who “have disputed his claims, saying that second and third generations of immigrants are already showing significantly reduced birth rates…” Furthermore, it also quotes Brookings Institution expert Justin Vaisse who “argues similar declines with immigrant birth rate in France.”

But why am I left uncomfortable with those expert views even more than with the racist banker´s bluntness? Is it because Germany´s preoccupation with “fremde Rassen” and their fertility has chilling historic associations?

After all, nobody can know which people will be a majority in which land in what time (and frankly who cares?) British Isles, North and South America, Australia, Africa, and most countries in Europe too, were populated by a variety of different peoples throughout history, before the present make up, and surely the present make up is not final, either. Unless Thilo Sarrazin, or German federal authorities, have a specific plan in mind, they hardly can change inevitable forces of history. And if they do have a plan, I´d like to know what it consists of.